Trump - Clown Genius

[Ego]

So, yeah. My best case scenario is not only that Trump wins, but that he's every bit as incompetent as he appears to be... That's how broken this is. And the brokenness is the problem. Voting for lesser evils is what paves the way to the greater evil. To where we are now.

I don't think the bus will actually make it over the cliff under Trump, but maybe he'll drive it into a ditch for a while. Or at least do one of these numbers and thus minimize his total damage:

It is kind of dubious to rely on the "the system" you find so utterly broken to create enough gridlock to save us from driving over the cliff. That is especially true because Trump appeals to those who want to completely destroy the system for various reasons.

Thiel worships creative destruction and smirks as he plays a role in delivering it to Washington. He is the secular Michele Bachmann, bringing about armageddon for the good of the chosen few. Uneducated whites want to break the system because it no longer treats them better than baggy-pant-wearing 50-cent-listening idiots who haven't read a book without pictures in .... ever. Bitter lesson, learning that you are no better than the person you once took pleasure looking down on. Blow up the stadium rather than have to encounter them on the level playing field. Add to that the hodge-podge of those who profit by the mantra, "never let a good crisis go to waste" and are not above manufacturing the crisis.

When I hear people with cushy jobs who enjoy the protection of our relatively well functioning system wish for the destruction of that system, I imagine how much fun it would be to transport them, just for a few days, to another country where the system really is bad. It is enlightening to see just how bad it can get. Voting for Trump with the belief that things can't get much worse than they already are.... is delusional.

Lesser of two evils may not be perfect, and it may not take us where we want to go, but it may keep us from going where we definitely don't want to go. Some of us are more fragile than others. Be careful what you wish for.

[Spartan_Warrior]

"It is kind of dubious to rely on the "the system" you find so utterly broken to create enough gridlock to save us from driving over the cliff. That is especially true because Trump appeals to those who want to completely destroy the system for various reasons."

I am positing that Trump's incompetence and inability to (politically) navigate that system will render him near impotent, yes. I am also positing that, despite Trump appealing to those who want to destroy the system, it doesn't mean he will succeed in doing it.* Instead, I theorize that 1) his election will result in a sea change in politics to appeal to the populist ideals that defeated the establishment against all odds and 2) the subsequent failure of his authoritarian right-wing policies will result in an abbreviated presidency and a subsequent pendulum swing toward left policies.

*On that note, it seems many who fear Trump's omnipotence in passing his absurd positions are in many cases the same people who decried Bernie because he wasn't "pragmatic" and "would never get his big promises done"... (Present company excluded.) Well, Bernie at least had forty years of experience in that system. Trump has, as of now, more enemies than friends in Washington, and the backing of a few voters. (As I believe you noted, most who vote for him will not be voting "for him", but against Clinton. And vice versa, of course.)

So let me ask you. Are you afraid that Donald Trump is going to execute or lead a fascist takeover of the entire government...? Or otherwise subvert the rule of law and power allowed to the President under our system? If so, why do you fear this? If not, what is there to fear?

"When I hear people with cushy jobs who enjoy the protection of our relatively well functioning system wish for the destruction of that system, I imagine how much fun it would be to transport them, just for a few days, to another country where the system really is bad."

You mean one of the parts of the world that's getting run over by the bus of neo-liberal imperialism that the U.S. establishment has been driving for 30 years or so?**

**I think this election has revealed to me more than ever that most voters do not share my tendency to look beyond immediate personal benefit in casting their votes--rather, that is typically the sole perspective considered. And by "personal" I include all parts of the person including tribal/nationalistic affiliations. I often prefer more objective and strategic considerations grounded in my moral theory. I don't need or expect government policies to benefit me or my tribe in particular, just to be clear.

"Voting for Trump with the belief that things can't get much worse than they already are.... is delusional."

Agreed, and not what I said. Necessarily, at this point, things will get worse, in what I personally consider to be the most important ways (climate change and income inequality). My political considerations are how long it will last (4 years for Trump vs. a higher probability of reelection for Hillary), how containable or limited the damage will be, and what the outlook is for 2018 elections and beyond.

[Ego]

So let me ask you. Are you afraid that Donald Trump is going to execute or lead a fascist takeover of the entire government...? Or otherwise subvert the rule of law and power allowed to the President under our system? If so, why do you fear this? If not, what is there to fear?

I don't fear any particular scenario. I look at our increasingly complex society that is, all things considered, pretty good though it could be better in some glaringly obvious ways, and I hear a prospective leader claim over and over that the problems can be fixed..... easy! He'll just do what needs to be done to make us great again. You've pointed out that he has no idea what he is talking about on a host of issues.

This is not a new phenomenon. He and Chávez have more than a few similarities.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 ... in-common/

Trump ran as a Republican and used creative destruction to get to the top of the ticket. He gleefully continues to dismantle the party as a campaign strategy. He has a history of declaring bankruptcy as a business strategy. You might believe that Venezuela can't happen here. I disagree.

I don't underestimate the destructive power of a sociopath.

[Ego]

Okay.... a little over the top. I was running with tyler's point above. Though I do *believe* there is some truth to it.

ETA, OTOH, maybe I was just bullshitting. Good for the goose.

[Dragline]

And your head is in the sand if you can't admit that 98% of the media is firmly backing HRC and smearing Trump on a daily basis.

Um, no, that old chestnut is just a modern myth that some people like to use to convince themselves of their "underdog status" and rectitude. But it makes a good story so people keep telling it.

Consider that the most popular TV news channel -- which despite its protestations is main-stream media and is quite profitable -- supports Trump, as do many other channels, writers and papers. For example, I don't see him being maligned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48uBThB_5ZE (You do see the strangeness of Hannity acting like he's not part of the media that he criticizes, but this is just part of the usual game-show host antics of telling people what they want to hear and working that underdog theme. For the mimetic opposite freak show, watch Maddow.)

In the internet age, its easy to pick your favorite media slant and this is exactly what people who regularly consume news media do. Media companies pick sides because it makes for better/more consistent audiences to sell to sponsors. Just go to the splash page of a decent aggregator like Real Clear Politics and you can see about half of the headlines slant one way and half the other. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ And if you looked at the demographics of viewership/readership, you would see pretty even splits overall as to what people consume on the left/right.

In fact, the only ones that are usually worth reading are the ones where you see a Republican being criticized by a conservative outlet or a Democrat being criticized by a liberal one. The rest is just the usual fare served up to make people feel happy with their opinions and sell soap to them. And to give them something to clutter up their friends and relatives social media feeds with.

[Ego]

@Ego
The majority of the American voters are uneducated about their candidates. Whether they are white, black, hispanic, or educated or not. Can we just admit this and stop picking on demographics?

Abso-fricking-lutely not! This is precisely the political correctness that Trump supporters despise. They hate it that they can't call a spade a spade. Well, back at you brother.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ly/471714/

-Trump's support skewed male, white, and poor.
-The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree.

You can't have it both ways.

[Riggerjack]

Ego, did you actually read the article you linked to? That was some of the worst math I've seen in "support" of assertions I've seen in years.

I mean, I know it's the Atlantic, so their reader base isn't self selecting for critical thinking, but damn!

“For every 1 percentage point more liberal the precinct, Donald Trump's share of votes rises by 0.48 percentage points,” Soltas found.

So, he's so unpopular he pulls 48% votes from across the party lines? And the more educated (indoctrinated) the population, the less likely to vote Trump? Oooh! And the more they think the system ignores them, the more they vote Trump!

Yup, if you just keep repeating that those unpopular people support that guy over, and over, and back it up with "stats", the herd will move. Goebbels would be proud.

To be clear, Trump is a douche bag. But really, I thought you would have more to back you up when you make statements like:

Uneducated whites want to break the system because it no longer treats them better than baggy-pant-wearing 50-cent-listening idiots who haven't read a book without pictures in .... ever. Bitter lesson, learning that you are no better than the person you once took pleasure looking down on. Blow up the stadium rather than have to encounter them on the level playing field.

I mean, the stats used in that silly article were almost within the margin of error on most polls...

[Ego]

@ffj, no, there is a very important difference which is the reason I push the 'dumb' narrative. Trump is appealing to those who are persistently anti-intellectual. That is much more dangerous than simple 'dumb'.

Not too long ago party leaders would feign their anti-intellectual cred to expand the base. Today the tail wags the dog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opini ... trump.html

History has something to teach us about populist anti-intellectualist movements. Not pretty.

[tylerrr]

In fact, I would say most voters are complete idiots who shouldn't even be allowed to vote if it were up to me. If you don't have a college degree or own a business or can't pass a basic English test, just shut up and stop trying to vote because now it's illegal for you. You're too dumb to decide my next President. You're a leech, a waste. That's my opinion of the average voter.

I have to look at gang-bangers with their pants falling off their backside tell me what a great candidate someone is....Give me an effing break, most of these people couldn't write a complete sentence, much less know who would make a great President. I can guarantee they don't even know the difference between an asset and a liability. The word "debt" means nothing to them.

Trump would lose a very big block of voters if this were the case. The only difference would be their clothes. None of the Trump supporters I know from my rural hometown have read a book in ages, have a college degree, etc.

Nice try to equate the gang-banging scum of Obama and Hillary's base with Trump's base of blue collar workers. But the moral equivalency isn't working...

[Chad]

Nice try to equate the gang-banging scum of Obama and Hillary's base with Trump's base of blue collar workers. But the moral equivalency isn't working...

Hey, I just used your criteria. Don't blame me.

[7Wannabe5]

Since the world clearly revolves around me, and I just chose to dump two very affluent men, one of whom is a die-hard supporter of HRC, and one of whom is a die-hard supporter of Trump, it is my opinion that all parties involved in the current political debate are suffering from almost delusional level sense of entitlement based on extremely outdated and unscientific perspectives on the realities of the current world economy and how these realities will necessarily effect the rules of the market.

[Riggerjack]

it is my opinion that all parties involved in the current political debate are suffering from almost delusional level sense of entitlement based on extremely outdated and unscientific perspectives on the realities of the current world economy and how these realities will necessarily effect the rules of the market.

Wait. When was that last not the case? I'm thinking maybe sometime around the Spanish American war...

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack: I'm thinking it would have to be some time prior to the Roman-Persian wars.

[jacob]

@Ego, ffj, Chad, tylerr - I recommend reading A Hillbilly Elegy which just came out. Link to a lot of reviews. I also saw a very long interview with him but unfortunately I lost it. I haven't read the book yet but I have read a bunch of reviews and they confirm what I see in the my own personal collection of Trump voters (friends and relatives) which combined with their facebook exchanges with similars (ugh, research by anecdotal facebook references ... but hey, ...) ... leaving with a sample size of a few dozen in total and a handful up close.

So based on what I've seen about this collection, I agree that the Trump base is misunderstood by both liberals and conservatives. Here's my semi-informed understanding about the Trump base (as I know them):

Why liberals are wrong about the Trump base:
The Trump base (as I know them) is not anti-intellectual. Rather, they are complete non-intellectuals. It is true that most of them never read books. They might have a book collection of 1 or 2 books, total. Have they read them? (I asked). No, because they don't like to read. Do they dislike education? No, they're proud of their diplomas. Do they dislike intellectuals (such as me) or the intellectual statements I'm prone to make? No, they value them, but unlike liberals/intellectuals who would take me seriously insofar I appear that I know what I'm talking about, they take me seriously if and only if I'm part of their group (e.g. a relative). In general there's no desire to seek out nor retain intellectual knowledge beyond the point of getting by. Intellectually speaking, I knew more [intellectual] facts about the world by the time I was in 4th grade (e.g. how many planets in the solar system, where is Pakistan on a map, what happened on December 7th, how to do long division) than they do as adults. However, they are proud to be "paying the bills" even if they're economically struggling. This struggle has a lot to do with spending money on data plans (for cable and gaming), guns, pets, and car parts; and not so much on savings, mortgages, health insurance, and dental care. The solution here, for them, is to work harder and take a second job, which they'll then do, not to restructure their spending.

Liberals believe two things about the Trump base. 1) That their behaviour is due to lack of educational opportunities. 2) That their struggles can be fixed with handout programs. The Trump base resents this because (1) implies that ignorance is their primary problem but they don't believe that knowledge is the prime value (conversely, to a white-collar professional, knowledge is pretty much the only thing they value and they'd happily take the family cat to the shelter for a fancy career opportunity---well guess who adopts said cat? Yes, that's right.) And (2) implies that liberals believe that the Trump base can't take care of themselves or in the popular vernacular ("pay the bills") which is a very dishonourable position to be in.

Why conservatives are wrong about the Trump base:
Conservatives believe in moral agency. They believe that if you work hard on your business or your job and make smart choices---by which they mean follow conservative moral values which incidentally should be coded into legal law---anyone in America can succeed. Although the Trump base (as I know them) believe in working hard to "pay the bills", they do not believe that their hard work has any effect on the outcome of their life/situation. They do not believe in agency, at all. They are firmly convinced that the world is out to get them and screw them over. They often talk about how their co-workers and [former] friends are idiots. They encourage an in-your-face attitude and standing-up-for-yourself and your tribe. If someone insults your mother/wife/girlfriend, you punch them in the face. While that ethos worked well in past warrior cultures, you can imagine how it tends to get them laid off more often than not. A popular conversation topic is how many fist fights they've personally been in. They respect strong "warriors" who win confrontations. If such a leader is found they will back him up to a fault. Justice, morals, or being right matters much less than loyalty and winning. Their planning horizon, as far as I can tell, is about 30 minutes to a few hours. Resolutions made today will be broken tomorrow. One popular resolution is "to get out of this town" and "start over" but such plans are never acted on. As such, the main strategy for making big changes and the only chance to win at something is to buy lottery tickets. If they've seen a string of winners in city A, it's generally believed that the next winner will be in city B.

The Trump base differs from traditional conservative values by not believing in agency. Also unlike conservatives who believe that law is the source of order, the Trump base believes that strength is the source of order. Their primary desire is for a strong man who can give them the feeling of winning in life that they don't get from the lottery nor from their work experience. Typical conservative statements about working hard in order to succeed ring hollow when their personal experience has been one of being laid off over and over as other values (such as performance, personal behaviour, political correctness, ability to manage, ...) has increasingly taken a front seat to loyalty. What they want is not a party that promotes moral values that they must follow. What they want is to join a tribe behind a strong leader who can identify other tribes and win against them and thus set things right.

[enigmaT120]

That sure sounds like the culture in which I was raised. I was a freak, but I was their freak.

[tylerrr]

Nice try to equate the gang-banging scum of Obama and Hillary's base with Trump's base of blue collar workers. But the moral equivalency isn't working...

Hey, I just used your criteria. Don't blame me.

[tylerrr]

@Dragline - Fact is, most people watch/read the MSM outlets....So they are propaganda outlets that influence the masses....

Earlier, I said Fox is the only MSM channel that gives Trump any positive news on a consistent basis....The other channels are positive for HRC and 95% negative for Trump. So , I'm talking about Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc....

There are literally 6 NEGATIVE HEADLINES right now on CNN.com about Trump: http://www.cnn.com/.

Right on the Front Page. This is a daily occurrence.


This is the reason Fox has succeeded so much...Because there has always been a bias against conservatives and they cornered the market on a starving audience.

In addition, many surveys have shown the overwhelming majority of journalists are left-wing Democrats.

I really can't believe you're trying to convince people the news is balanced in bias overall. Even liberals like Chris Matthews have routinely said most journalists are Democrats. This is no secret. It's been a well known fact for years.

And don't even get me started on how biased EVERY SINGLE DAY's HEADLINES are in the Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, etc. etc. etc. is.....

The deck is stacked....and always has been.

That's why Obama is still portrayed as the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ by the media to this day....Just like when he got elected and his base was crying and screaming in the streets about their Messianic Savior. And any criticism of Obama on policy results in being called a racist by the MSM.

[Ego]

The Trump base (as I know them) is not anti-intellectual. Rather, they are complete non-intellectuals. ....
Do they dislike intellectuals (such as me) or the intellectual statements I'm prone to make? No, they value them, but unlike liberals/intellectuals who would take me seriously insofar I appear that I know what I'm talking about, they take me seriously if and only if I'm part of their group (e.g. a relative).

I will have to get the book.

This hinges on how one defines anti-intellectual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

In public discourse, anti-intellectuals are usually perceived and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk—populists against political elitism and academic elitism—proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education.

That NYTimes article I linked to above was written by a Republican who is seriously concern that Trump has chased the thinkers out of the party. Trump is not above spite, just look at his response to Ryan and McCain. A spiteful president who has alienated all of the thinkers, those who are capable of plotting a course from X to Y, may just sail us up onto the rocks.

Regardless of whether his supporters are anti or non-intellectual, is the populist Trump version potentially as damaging to the country as mass anti-(non)-intellectual movements have been in other countries in the past?

We should look to Argentina in the sixties and yes even China and Cambodia in the seventies for examples of what could happen. That may seem hyperbolic at first. That is, until you step back and consider that Donald Trump.... DONALD TRUMP... has single handedly dismantled the Republican party. If I were to have suggested that a year ago we would have all laughed at my naivete. Who's laughing now?

[GandK]

This hinges on how one defines anti-intellectual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

...proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education.(emphasis mine)

Wow. I agree with this remark, with the possible exception of the bolded portion. My perception is that almost without exception, the more educated one is, the more detached he is from the everyday concerns of the majority (we can maybe quibble over who "the majority" is... I think it generally seems to mean "most of the people the speaker knows"). Now, I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing in the aggregate, but that's my perception, certainly.

Would that perception alone make me anti-intellectual? Or do I have to then make a moral judgment about the perceived disconnect between the (relatively) more educated and less educated being a Bad Thing? Or is that not enough either, and I'd have to start shouting obscenities at people who have more education than me in order to earn that designation? Where exactly is the line?

[7Wannabe5]

“Every nation that has ended in tyranny has come to that end by way of good order. It certainly does not follow from this that peoples should scorn public peace, but neither should they be satisfied with that and nothing more. A nation that asks nothing of government but the maintenance of order is already a slave in the depths of its heart; it is a slave of its well-being, ready for the man who will put it in chains.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." - John Stuart Mill